Sends an email to a specified recipient with a subject, body, and optional CC addresses.
Send an email to a specified recipient.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cc | No | CC email addresses (comma-separated). | |
| to | Yes | Recipient email address. | |
| body | Yes | Email body content. | |
| subject | Yes | Email subject line. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys the external side effect of sending an email, but says nothing about authentication requirements, delivery guarantees, irreversibility, or failure behavior. This is minimal disclosure for a side-effecting tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple four-parameter tool, the schema covers the parameters and the description states the core operation. However, because there is no output schema and no annotations, a bit more context about sending behavior, limitations, or results would make the definition more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter clearly. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('send') and resource ('email') with a recipient, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is also easily distinguishable from all sibling tools, none of which are email-related.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool—whenever an email needs to be sent—but it does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use conditions or name alternatives. Confusion is unlikely due to the unrelated sibling list, but the guidance is only implied, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.